I don't think you know what it means. It literally means anything that is perceived (there's that word) as creating a hostile work environment. Sad, but true.
You're full of shit. Various tax breaks kick in at certain tax levels. You could certainly lose money and take home less net pay after getting a pay raise, and not necessarily just with a tiny raise either.
Funny, it's odd that the much-hated rich pay the vast majority of taxes in this country. If they've got us so brainwashed, it's not helping them out much.
No, your problem is you don't understand how people can be fair and objective. I don't go for soaking the rich because it isn't fair or right. They already pay plenty of taxes with our double-graduated income tax. It's double graduated because a percentage is, welll, kind of already graduated you know? That's why it's a per-cent. You pay more the more you make. Upping the percentage by income makes it double progressive.
Please. That model only works in very special circumstances such as countries with small populations and/or high oil or other natural resource incomes. It wouldn't balance out here, and people wouldn't stand for it. As a middle class (or above) American your standard of living would go way down if we went with that model.
8/10 rabble rouser's rating. Your main failing was you forgot to use the phrase "fat cats". All you had to do was change it to "fat cat billionaires" and you would have gotten a 9/10. Now, for a 10/10 you should have thrown in "super-rich" somewhere, and mentioned the evil corporations.
Haha.. Seriously? Some guy going out and spending his money on a new TV or some booze trickles up to those much hated rich fat cats anyway. So if there's no trickle down, giving money to poor people only helps the rich people anyway. It doesn't provide any meaningful long-term income or benefit to the poor person.
You're not listening. The law indicates that insurance companies must cover anyone, including pre-existing conditions.
Clearly this is expensive, so as an apparent bone the bill requires that everyone get insurance, as you describe.
The problem is that the fine is less than insurance would cost. So the wise consumer will not buy insurance, and will instead pay the fine. Should he get sick and need insurance, he can then just go buy it as needed.
Therefore, the ratio of healthy/sick people will go way down, and insurance companies will not be able to operate without massively hiking rates. Either they'll be prevented from doing so by law, or nobody will be able to afford it and the Democrats will come back "see, look how expensive insurance is, let's just go single payer".
In short, contrary to requiring everyone to buy insurance, this bill does _exactly_ the opposite and encourages healthy people not to get insurance, since they can just buy it in an emergency now.
That's my point, now the insurance companies will only be insuring the old and sick. Premiums will of course go up for everyone. Except there'll have to be price controls, so the insurance companies will eventually just have to fold up shop.
It's a fairly transparent approach to force single payer sometime in the next 10 years or so.
What exactly about obamacare do you think will improve anything?
For young, healthy people it's a goldmine - I'll give you that. Now you don't need to buy insurance unless you get some horrible illness. You can just pay the fine (less than cost of insurance) and then if something happens buy insurance when you need it.
This will crush the insurance industry as it tilts the inherent "betting" nature of insurance to the buyer's side. It's like being told that now, when you play blackjack, you can wait until after you win or lose to decide how much to bet.
Clearly crushing the insurance industry is the goal here, so I guess it's not really a flaw in obamacare but something most people probably aren't aware of.
Exactly, it's better for Intel, OEMs, and retailers. And those efficiencies bear out in the price consumers pay for the product. Now they can sell the consumer a less expensive product but also allow the same product to be upgraded to what would normally be a more expensive unit in software. Normal consumers do not upgrade CPUs. Now then can easily.
The problem people have with this appears to be a lack of understanding of how businesses price products, especially the semiconductor industry.
Like the PSN fiasco, which was also due to consumer ignorance, this one could blow up in Intel's face. In the case of the PSN, even technical people turned off their brains. It was as if there weren't any of a hundred ways for someone to track your computer already, they thought the PSN was some privacy issue. It was ridiculous, and any backlash about this is equally ridiculous.
God save me, why am I arguing with you people. You have no idea how business works, much less how semiconductor manufacturing works.
First, both versions may very well cost $50 to manufacture.
Second (sigh, I'm explaining this to an adult?) businesses do not sell things based on the price of manufacture. They sell based on the price they can get for the product.
You don't know anything about business or business ethics.
I think it's fairly obvious the primary target of this would be OEMs, who can now sell one unit either as an e.g. 2.8GHz desktop or as a 3.0GHz desktop with the same hardware. Less development cost, fewer very slightly different models they have to deal with, etc...
Like most such stories, people react based on emotion without any real thought. It's both hilarious and sad at the same time.
Who would buy such a car? You're not making any sense. You do know all CPU vendors bin their hardware and that your CPU can likely run at higher speeds, and in fact may be identical to a CPU that cost $200 more or $200 less, right?
You're buying a CPU that performs as you expect. If it doesn't, buy another one. If you buy it, you also get the option to upgrade later if you want. Or not. Up to you.
As for what pisses people off, people are generally run by emotion and lack any kind of real rationality so predicting what pisses people off is like predicting the exact temperature in Chicago on May 13, 2015.
Exactly. Most of the replies in this story are just nonsensical. I really don't understand how some people see the world.
Consider this an option, and one you can ignore. If you can buy a better processor for the same price and don't care about upgrading, buy that one. Otherwise, this is just an option that you can choose to use or not use later on.
Strange, for someone with "Pentium" in your name you clearly know absolutely _nothing_ about the business of technology or manufacturing. May I recommend you change your name to "Abacus100"?
You didn't pay for shit. You knew exactly what you were buying when you bought it. I also laugh at your concept of "greedy" when applied to a corporation. Of course they're fucking greedy, that's why they exist you rocket surgeon.
It amazes me that nerds can have such irrational, retarded points of view sometimes.
Intel should just not tell anyone about this capability. Then you buy the CPU. Then 6 months later they say "Oh, PS you can actually software upgrade your CPU!". The reaction of a normal person would be "sweet!", but some of you dweebs would be all "OMG noooooo! that's terrrrrible! I have the _option_ to pay to upgrade my CPU?!?! Khaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan!"
Please present a rational reason for your dislike of this. Note than hand-waving and nebulous comments about "control" don't cut it as it's not rational.
Scenario one, you buy a 3GHz processor that has 512K cache, and it's not upgradeable. You pay $99.
Scenario two, you buy a 3GHz processor that has 512K cache for $99. You can pay $50 to upgrade it to 3.2GHz and 1M cache.
I defy you to logically explain how scenario one is better.
Sure, you'll make a facile point that they should just charge you $99 for the 3.2GHz 1M chip since they sold the physical item for that price. I'll point out that how Intel bins, markets, and sells its own product is its business. They don't charge you based on what they pay for the chip, they charge you what the market will bear based on competition and availability (supply and demand).
Why? Seriously, exactly what is it about this that would piss off a rational human being? Are you _seriously_ claiming that _not_ having the ability to upgrade your processor for a fee is a good thing?
This is an option, you don't have to do it. You seriously think it would be better if Intel just sold the chips as-is (at the lower binning) instead of at least offering the capability to software upgrade it?
Frankly, I'm baffled by this stance. I also find it hilarious how anytime something like this comes out people are just so cock sure that it will be cracked by those brilliant crackers out there. I wouldn't bet on it.
If you can't think of a way to secure a feature like this in hardware such that you'd need either access to Intel's private keys to the kingdom or several million dollars worth of work you don't have much of an imagination.
Wow, I wonder if that's because the population has grown massively and poor people breed faster than middle class or rich people?
Furthermore, this is false. Across the board you make more (in inflation sdjusted dollars) than you did in 1967 in every quartile. So your standard of living has not gone down.
Complaining about income inequality is like complaining about attractiveness or intelligence inequality - it's pointless tilting at windmills.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think you know what it means. It literally means anything that is perceived (there's that word) as creating a hostile work environment. Sad, but true.
Seriously? What is this, 1997? Who still writes code vulnerable to those?
You're full of shit. Various tax breaks kick in at certain tax levels. You could certainly lose money and take home less net pay after getting a pay raise, and not necessarily just with a tiny raise either.
Funny, it's odd that the much-hated rich pay the vast majority of taxes in this country. If they've got us so brainwashed, it's not helping them out much.
No, your problem is you don't understand how people can be fair and objective. I don't go for soaking the rich because it isn't fair or right. They already pay plenty of taxes with our double-graduated income tax. It's double graduated because a percentage is, welll, kind of already graduated you know? That's why it's a per-cent. You pay more the more you make. Upping the percentage by income makes it double progressive.
Please. That model only works in very special circumstances such as countries with small populations and/or high oil or other natural resource incomes. It wouldn't balance out here, and people wouldn't stand for it. As a middle class (or above) American your standard of living would go way down if we went with that model.
Nobody, he clearly has a pet phrase he looks for excuses to use, even as a non sequitur.
"Why sir, you're talking about an economic thunderdome! Are you some sort of Randian, tut tut?"
"No, sir, I just asked you if you want to super-size your fries."
8/10 rabble rouser's rating. Your main failing was you forgot to use the phrase "fat cats". All you had to do was change it to "fat cat billionaires" and you would have gotten a 9/10. Now, for a 10/10 you should have thrown in "super-rich" somewhere, and mentioned the evil corporations.
-1 Flamebait, AKA the notorious (-1 : Disagree). You got pwnt by the new Left Wing Think Tank, Slashdot.
Haha.. Seriously? Some guy going out and spending his money on a new TV or some booze trickles up to those much hated rich fat cats anyway. So if there's no trickle down, giving money to poor people only helps the rich people anyway. It doesn't provide any meaningful long-term income or benefit to the poor person.
Who shops online for environmental reasons?
You're not listening. The law indicates that insurance companies must cover anyone, including pre-existing conditions.
Clearly this is expensive, so as an apparent bone the bill requires that everyone get insurance, as you describe.
The problem is that the fine is less than insurance would cost. So the wise consumer will not buy insurance, and will instead pay the fine. Should he get sick and need insurance, he can then just go buy it as needed.
Therefore, the ratio of healthy/sick people will go way down, and insurance companies will not be able to operate without massively hiking rates. Either they'll be prevented from doing so by law, or nobody will be able to afford it and the Democrats will come back "see, look how expensive insurance is, let's just go single payer".
In short, contrary to requiring everyone to buy insurance, this bill does _exactly_ the opposite and encourages healthy people not to get insurance, since they can just buy it in an emergency now.
That's my point, now the insurance companies will only be insuring the old and sick. Premiums will of course go up for everyone. Except there'll have to be price controls, so the insurance companies will eventually just have to fold up shop.
It's a fairly transparent approach to force single payer sometime in the next 10 years or so.
What exactly about obamacare do you think will improve anything?
For young, healthy people it's a goldmine - I'll give you that. Now you don't need to buy insurance unless you get some horrible illness. You can just pay the fine (less than cost of insurance) and then if something happens buy insurance when you need it.
This will crush the insurance industry as it tilts the inherent "betting" nature of insurance to the buyer's side. It's like being told that now, when you play blackjack, you can wait until after you win or lose to decide how much to bet.
Clearly crushing the insurance industry is the goal here, so I guess it's not really a flaw in obamacare but something most people probably aren't aware of.
Exactly, it's better for Intel, OEMs, and retailers. And those efficiencies bear out in the price consumers pay for the product. Now they can sell the consumer a less expensive product but also allow the same product to be upgraded to what would normally be a more expensive unit in software. Normal consumers do not upgrade CPUs. Now then can easily.
The problem people have with this appears to be a lack of understanding of how businesses price products, especially the semiconductor industry.
Like the PSN fiasco, which was also due to consumer ignorance, this one could blow up in Intel's face. In the case of the PSN, even technical people turned off their brains. It was as if there weren't any of a hundred ways for someone to track your computer already, they thought the PSN was some privacy issue. It was ridiculous, and any backlash about this is equally ridiculous.
God save me, why am I arguing with you people. You have no idea how business works, much less how semiconductor manufacturing works.
First, both versions may very well cost $50 to manufacture.
Second (sigh, I'm explaining this to an adult?) businesses do not sell things based on the price of manufacture. They sell based on the price they can get for the product.
You don't know anything about business or business ethics.
I think it's fairly obvious the primary target of this would be OEMs, who can now sell one unit either as an e.g. 2.8GHz desktop or as a 3.0GHz desktop with the same hardware. Less development cost, fewer very slightly different models they have to deal with, etc...
Like most such stories, people react based on emotion without any real thought. It's both hilarious and sad at the same time.
Who would buy such a car? You're not making any sense. You do know all CPU vendors bin their hardware and that your CPU can likely run at higher speeds, and in fact may be identical to a CPU that cost $200 more or $200 less, right?
You're buying a CPU that performs as you expect. If it doesn't, buy another one. If you buy it, you also get the option to upgrade later if you want. Or not. Up to you.
As for what pisses people off, people are generally run by emotion and lack any kind of real rationality so predicting what pisses people off is like predicting the exact temperature in Chicago on May 13, 2015.
Exactly. Most of the replies in this story are just nonsensical. I really don't understand how some people see the world.
Consider this an option, and one you can ignore. If you can buy a better processor for the same price and don't care about upgrading, buy that one. Otherwise, this is just an option that you can choose to use or not use later on.
Opportunity cost, genius. If I sell you a my car for $300 and I could have gotten $500 for it, I just lost $200.
The entire response to this thread is just depressing. I had no idea people were so clueless and irrational about business.
Strange, for someone with "Pentium" in your name you clearly know absolutely _nothing_ about the business of technology or manufacturing. May I recommend you change your name to "Abacus100"?
You didn't pay for shit. You knew exactly what you were buying when you bought it. I also laugh at your concept of "greedy" when applied to a corporation. Of course they're fucking greedy, that's why they exist you rocket surgeon.
It amazes me that nerds can have such irrational, retarded points of view sometimes.
Intel should just not tell anyone about this capability. Then you buy the CPU. Then 6 months later they say "Oh, PS you can actually software upgrade your CPU!". The reaction of a normal person would be "sweet!", but some of you dweebs would be all "OMG noooooo! that's terrrrrible! I have the _option_ to pay to upgrade my CPU?!?! Khaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan!"
Please present a rational reason for your dislike of this. Note than hand-waving and nebulous comments about "control" don't cut it as it's not rational.
Scenario one, you buy a 3GHz processor that has 512K cache, and it's not upgradeable. You pay $99.
Scenario two, you buy a 3GHz processor that has 512K cache for $99. You can pay $50 to upgrade it to 3.2GHz and 1M cache.
I defy you to logically explain how scenario one is better.
Sure, you'll make a facile point that they should just charge you $99 for the 3.2GHz 1M chip since they sold the physical item for that price. I'll point out that how Intel bins, markets, and sells its own product is its business. They don't charge you based on what they pay for the chip, they charge you what the market will bear based on competition and availability (supply and demand).
Why? Seriously, exactly what is it about this that would piss off a rational human being? Are you _seriously_ claiming that _not_ having the ability to upgrade your processor for a fee is a good thing?
This is an option, you don't have to do it. You seriously think it would be better if Intel just sold the chips as-is (at the lower binning) instead of at least offering the capability to software upgrade it?
Frankly, I'm baffled by this stance. I also find it hilarious how anytime something like this comes out people are just so cock sure that it will be cracked by those brilliant crackers out there. I wouldn't bet on it.
If you can't think of a way to secure a feature like this in hardware such that you'd need either access to Intel's private keys to the kingdom or several million dollars worth of work you don't have much of an imagination.
It won't be cracked.
Again, you're missing the word "free". I didn't say unregulated markets were good, and I don't believe they are. We need some regulation.
However, don't use the "durr, that's not a free market" language incorrectly when it _is_ a free market.
Wow, I wonder if that's because the population has grown massively and poor people breed faster than middle class or rich people?
Furthermore, this is false. Across the board you make more (in inflation sdjusted dollars) than you did in 1967 in every quartile. So your standard of living has not gone down.
Complaining about income inequality is like complaining about attractiveness or intelligence inequality - it's pointless tilting at windmills.